'How dare you': Greta Thunberg tears into world leaders over inaction at U.N. climate summit

Just as some individuals like illicit narcotic substances such as cocaine and heroin.

 

Hate to tell you but the IPCC does not make policy for America. Trump fixed that.

 

Temporary

Things will revert

 

You should retract that statement. The accusation could be construed with defamation of character. I also like Nora from Queens.

 

AGW hysteria is just like all the other ones I've seen come and go over my life.
"This to shall pass"

 

There is no defamation of character to be found in stating that individuals have an appreciation for things that are ultimately bad for them.

 

Like what? A cleaner and greener world? A world that still has Monarch butterflies?

 

There is no proof that any proposal that has been presented would yield such results, or would not yield unintended consequences that would result in even worse consequences. Battery-powered motor vehicles are supposed to be cleaner than those powered by gasoline due to their lack of emissions, but the batteries themselves are quite toxic, are toxic when disposed of, and require the consumption of fossil fuels by electrical plants to supply the energy needed to recharge these batteries, so there are always emissions to be had. Those who believe otherwise are quite foolish in their beliefs.

 

I like the concept of an internal combustion engine. It is the fuel that bothers me. You could run an engine on hydrogen with no toxic emissions or natural gas with less emissions.

 

Not supposed to be cleaner, but are, ie no poisonous gases (such as Oxides of N, or S) or carcinogenic particulates in the exhaust, from burning fossil fuels in ICEs .

Incorrect

A problem dealt with by managed recycling by the battery manufacturers

Er, no....the electricity will be supplied to the grid by solar/wind backed by pumped hydro storage, or by one's own home system backed by battery.

Disproved above.

BTW, fuel cell technology, which combines hydrogen (from green energy) with oxygen (from the air), to produce electricity, is an interesting alternative to conventional electric vehicles with batteries.

 

H2 is difficult to handle as well as much costlier than CH4.

 

Methane…..yes well.... but I see now even Boris Johnson wants to ban CO2 emitting vehicles by 2035....

Meanwhile natural gas itself is expensive on the world market, and the costs in a fully developed hydrogen industry based on clean green energy (with zero marginal cost of production itself, when the entire globe is powered by the sun (within 30 years?), would be much lower than now.

In any case, fuel cell technology is very interesting and may well compete with battery EV's in the future, when fossil fuel ICEs are long gone.

 

I checked...both Sanders and Buttigieg, front runners in the Dem primaries, have the GND in their policy platform. (And have you caught up with Boris Johnson's latest statement re ICE vehicles...).

OTOH, it's time you knew about MMT …...

In short, if the resources are available, we (the public) 'can have it' … a reversal of the fallacy pushed by orthodox neoliberal economists, namely, "how can we pay for it?".

In fact: sovereign currency-issuing governments do not need to tax (or borrow from) the private sector before they can spend...a revelation that turns conventional neoliberal economics on its head.

The constraint for the government is the productive capacity of the economy (and ultimately the resources - including labour and know how - available to the nation).

The mainstream would have us believe the government - monopoly issuer of the currency - must 'earn an income' before it can spend (by taxing or borrowing), just as households in the private sector (ie, you and me) - users of the currency - must earn an income, before we can spend.
-----

That's your 'free' lesson in the basics of MMT.

Note: the Fed - who employed me to educate you in MMT - can reimburse me by directly crediting an account at the central bank, since none of the nation's scarce resources were consumed by me, in this process of educating you. .

But more importantly, given the nation's private sector never employs all the nation's available resources including labour, then government can always create funds directly for specific purposes as long as such unused resources are available.

Now, the GND will no doubt require some diversion of presently engaged resources, but nevertheless we can begin building solar/wind farms backed by pumped-hydro storage, while we empirically discover the real limits, or capacity constraints, on the nation's resources and productive capacity

At the same time, we can eliminate all involuntary un/underemployment (as part of implementing the GND) without causing inflation, because we have purposefully (ie, by design, and R&D) avoided excess demand on the productive capacity of the nation.

 

And denialism is going the way of the dinosaur. Greta is simply the voice of her generation. All those “lefty brainwashed kids”. The right has been grizzling about? They are now at voting age and they are pissed that they face a future of climate uncertainty

 

Burning hydrogen in an ICE releases poisonous oxides of nitrogen, because the associated high combustion temperature causes nitrogen and oxygen from the air to combine.

 

Greta is indeed emblematic of a generation brainwashed and traumatized by liberal education systems indoctrinating our youth with socialism and AGW hysteria. She was particularly easy prey do to her mental issues and wack job parents. Hopefully better adjusted children with intelligent informed parents will not be as susceptible to the indoctrination disguised as education so prevalent in todays public schools.

 

No candidate of any party can possibly win an election with the GND in their platform.

 

"Socialism and AGW hysteria"?

What's not to like about a government guaranteed above poverty job scheme as part of a GND, for those not able to find employment in the private sector, operating alongside a sustainable productive private sector?

Please don't ask: "How can we pay for it?" because that will only reveal your ignorance of macroeconomics.

Hint: we can implement the policies outlined above, as long as the resources are available and the nation's productive capacity is maintained.

 

[QUOTE="AFM, post: 1071404688, member: 67377"]No candidate of any party can possibly win an election with the GND in their platform.[/QUOTE]

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/31/21113780/bernie-sanders-socialism-electability-primaries

Bernie Sanders leads Donald Trump in polls, even when you remind people he’s a socialist.

 

What's not to like about full employment and opportunities to advance? I'll take that any day over government guaranteed subsistence living.

 

That’s the difference between capitalism and socialism. But socialism has greater income equality. The problem is that incomes are much lower.

 

It was in response to your post. Once called on it, in complete accuracy, you lodge your false charge which frankly you should probably retract, but, that's up to you.

And yet, I'm the one that correctly pointed out the other false claim, that the US and China where the two biggest air polluters, when actually neither are, and the US is one of the Cleanest producers in the entire world..

It was your post, though you have been in a fighting retreat. Simply admitting you claims were in error and posting the correct information is all that is required of you at this point.

Our language isn't putty where you can simply change the meanings of words in ways that you think is advantageous to your overall claims. In fact, realizing you are doing this should be a loud warning that your entire set of concepts may not be based on reality.

As everyone should be, yet these lies about Carbon Dioxide pull attention, funding, resources and efforts from real pollutants, that are really dangerous and that have very real death counts. Hopefully you are not in a close relationship with someone that has pollution triggered breathing difficulties, but, it's deadly business.

Here is a simple question for your that can help us make sure we have a shared grasp of the underlying fundamentals:

What is the Purpose of the Economy?​

I included a cut of your post when I replied to your false claims about the US and Carbon Dioxide.

Complete nonsense. China is just outside the 10 ten WORST air pollutors.
The US is well within the Top ten of nations with the very CLEANEST air, despite our also having the greatest economic activity, in the world. We rightly serve as a role model of a very prosperous nation that dilligently cleans up after itself, yet you put us behind a filthy nation that treats the world and our oceans as its own personal toilet. What would Greta yell at you for that, if she had her facts straight?

That's not an aside to be dismissed, that is a key bit of knowledge that is quite frankly understood by all who ground their world view in testable, repeatable verifiable facts.

Weird how you place so much more value on stated plans than accomplished reality. All the hand clapping for Chi-coms and the big frowny face for the US, complete with claims that the US is the "biggest air polluter" and China is second, when the reality of the situation is that we are consistently grouped with the cleanest in the world and China, with the dirtiest in the world. I'm not sure your claim could have been more inaccurate, yet, still you go on with the long long long explanations and justifications.



Here is a key to put on your list right after:

1. Use terms correctly, don't falsely describe things as pollutants that actually aren't pollutants at all.
2. If your point requires constant long unconvincing explanations, immediately begin the truth for a more accurate statement that succinctly reflects reality and requires very little in the way of defense or justification.

For example: In terms of Air Pollution, the US is one of the Cleanest in the World, China is one of the dirtiest.

That statement is very easy to defend, it uses the language properly, and supporting and defending it against anyone who does not realize how true it is, is fun. For some reason there are folks who purport to control this discussion that think they have the right use false propaganda AND compel belief and loyalty to their claims. There is something deeply wrong with that world view, in fact, it shows no respect for the basic human rights of their fellow human beings. You should make that point three on your list above. If you are showing a fundamental disrespect for the unalienable rights of your fellow human beings, that too is a sign that your world view is badly askew and ripe for rapid fulfilling improvement. Now that's something to take pleasure and enjoyment from! You have a very bright future ahead of you!

Actually, our cleanest internal combustion engines have become so clean, that if they were operated in our old smoggy cities, that the exhaust coming out of the tailpipe would actually be cleaner than the air going into the intake. A remarkable feat on the part of the US Free Economy and we richly deserve sincere applause for our ACCOMPLISHMENT, but, instead we get the frowny face with all the compliments going toward those who haven't done nearly as well, but who announce great and grand plans that they have no history of actually accomplishing.

Do you know just how environmentally dirty old wind turbines are? Battery production and even worse disposal? We are pushing all these things into our environment with government acting as venture capitalist funders, and very difficult thing to get right even using your own money and it quickly devolves into crony pocket filling when administered by government employees with no personal finances in the game. What the hell do they care if Solyndra goes belly up and leaves an environmental nightmare in their wake, look at all the politically connected palms that got greased before the gig was exposed!

THE 21st CENTURY IS NOT TURNING OUT AS I HAD HOPED: Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills.​

Public venture funding produces this:



And 25 years later we have this:


Fragments of wind turbine blades await burial at the Casper Regional Landfill in Wyoming.

That's a big tractor down there, to get a sense of the massive volume of this waste.

Well, that is what is being tested in Court. The Trump Administration believes that federal law bars California from setting stiffer tailpipe emission standards and zero-emission vehicle mandates than the national standard.

Our auto industry needs the certainty that individual states cannot interfere with federal fuel economy standards. All Americans enjoy the savings of economy of scale when manufacturers can make cars that fit the Federal Standard, rather than boutique state by state standards.

Further, the Administration is not proposing a roll back, just that 2020 standards that the Obama Administration thought were just dandy for 2020, remain in place through 2026.

The Trump Administration is looking for a fleetwide fuel efficiency average of 37 mpg by 2026.

The U.S. auto industry achieved a record average of 24.9 miles-per-gallon in the 2017 model year, the Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday. But carmakers fell short of marks set by the Obama administration, and they didn't even really hit that, rather, most manufacturers only remained in compliance with the standards by cashing in credits from previous model years.

So stretching to 37 mpg by 2026 is no give me. I'm confident that the Courts will come to the right conclusion that properly balances the Citizen's, the State's and the Federal Government's rights and authorities. And 37 mpg is no slouch performance it's much better than what we see today.

2018 looks like it's going to come in at 25.4 miles per-gallon.

Yes. More than doubled last year, clearly out performed the market.

Their forecast P/E ratio for 2020 is 223.99 so that's a very pricey stock with the appreciation due to multiple expansion rather earnings expansion.

 

It's not equal if some work for it and others don't. That's the opposite of equal.

 

You wonder whether Bernie fans have grasped that a GND involves a dramatic reduction of their current lifestyle. I mean, I'd be okay with it .. since I've been living my own GND for decades .. but given the typical Bernie fan is from the demographic which has the heaviest carbon footprint and the most consumerist habits, it's hard not to find the idea of a GND deliciously hilarious.

 

Agreed. My comment was satirical.